1. Title, director and release year?
The Corporation, Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott & Joel Bakan, 2003
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film goes through the history of corporations and the impacts they have had on our society and environment all the way up to modern corporations. Initial corporation in the 1700’s could only exist if they can be proven useful to the public good. This is far from the current day ideal logy of corporation’s sole purpose of generating revenue for their stockholders. The film shows a shift from care of shareholder to care of stakeholders this results in a matrix of problems.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film does great job of displaying resistance corporations can cause when it comes to creating change in government policies. Green policies have been stopped in their tracks many times because of the potential revenue loss huge corporations have at stake. Corporations treat their employees as if they are replaceable, and really can give a damn of if they are benefiting the community or people lives in a positive way. The lack of responsibility these corporations are held to is disgusting, they want to have human rights yet they are not held responsible for their actions like humans are. It is clear with the influence of wealth corporations can control their restrictions and influence law makers to benefit their ideals.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The case of Fox news was hands down the most compelling situation I have seen yet throughout all of the films. The ruling blatantly stated that it is not illegal for Fox News to hide the truth from their viewers and not only report an altered version of the story, but actual false information. I do not understand how FOX can consider themselves a professional company when they have the professional standards of a tabloid magazine. The fact the courts openly allow a news organization to print lies is mind boggling. Once the gap in the system was discovered a law or restriction should be made to hold news providers accountable for providing information that is factual not propaganda.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
Although little was suggested for points of intervention I am not convinced that much can be done the fact of the matter is until we change the methodology of corporation and hold them responsible for their actions absolutely nothing will change. The influence money has on our culture as well as other cultures it is difficult to prevent incentives and bribes.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
Monsanto seed patent laws are also a very interesting topic considering I hope to be a product designer outside of college. Patent laws themselves are crippling to single entrepreneurs or inventors because they are timely and therefore, expensive to acquire. I know from previous design project a patent cost roughly $3,000 with an annual maintenance fee of $750. Unfortunately patents a lot of times are constructed by larger corporations who sit on them to file IP lawsuits on smaller companies causing a barrier of entry.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film is very informative on a subject that I think a lot of people know little about. Although we are surrounded by these mega corporations everyday many people do not know the tactics and methodology to achieve that Mega status. The film did a great job of keeping my interest by giving different industry examples of corporate dirty work. After watching the film I now have a negative perception on corporations based on the lack of environmental concern the majority of corporations have shown.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film does no suggest any specific points of intervention except they mention the union of people to fight against corporations. With the lack of points of intervention it is most likely that no one really has any idea of where to start, the sheer power of these corporations are too much to handle. However I am surprised they have not mention techniques such as boycotting to hit these companies financially which seems to be there only concern.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Any sort of direction or suggestion of actions we can take as a society would be helpful. Another element that would add value to the film would to show corporations that are environmentally and socially responsible. This can offer some hope and suggest how our mindset of how corporations are set up must change. Top of Form
The Corporation, Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott & Joel Bakan, 2003
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film goes through the history of corporations and the impacts they have had on our society and environment all the way up to modern corporations. Initial corporation in the 1700’s could only exist if they can be proven useful to the public good. This is far from the current day ideal logy of corporation’s sole purpose of generating revenue for their stockholders. The film shows a shift from care of shareholder to care of stakeholders this results in a matrix of problems.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film does great job of displaying resistance corporations can cause when it comes to creating change in government policies. Green policies have been stopped in their tracks many times because of the potential revenue loss huge corporations have at stake. Corporations treat their employees as if they are replaceable, and really can give a damn of if they are benefiting the community or people lives in a positive way. The lack of responsibility these corporations are held to is disgusting, they want to have human rights yet they are not held responsible for their actions like humans are. It is clear with the influence of wealth corporations can control their restrictions and influence law makers to benefit their ideals.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The case of Fox news was hands down the most compelling situation I have seen yet throughout all of the films. The ruling blatantly stated that it is not illegal for Fox News to hide the truth from their viewers and not only report an altered version of the story, but actual false information. I do not understand how FOX can consider themselves a professional company when they have the professional standards of a tabloid magazine. The fact the courts openly allow a news organization to print lies is mind boggling. Once the gap in the system was discovered a law or restriction should be made to hold news providers accountable for providing information that is factual not propaganda.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
Although little was suggested for points of intervention I am not convinced that much can be done the fact of the matter is until we change the methodology of corporation and hold them responsible for their actions absolutely nothing will change. The influence money has on our culture as well as other cultures it is difficult to prevent incentives and bribes.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
Monsanto seed patent laws are also a very interesting topic considering I hope to be a product designer outside of college. Patent laws themselves are crippling to single entrepreneurs or inventors because they are timely and therefore, expensive to acquire. I know from previous design project a patent cost roughly $3,000 with an annual maintenance fee of $750. Unfortunately patents a lot of times are constructed by larger corporations who sit on them to file IP lawsuits on smaller companies causing a barrier of entry.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film is very informative on a subject that I think a lot of people know little about. Although we are surrounded by these mega corporations everyday many people do not know the tactics and methodology to achieve that Mega status. The film did a great job of keeping my interest by giving different industry examples of corporate dirty work. After watching the film I now have a negative perception on corporations based on the lack of environmental concern the majority of corporations have shown.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film does no suggest any specific points of intervention except they mention the union of people to fight against corporations. With the lack of points of intervention it is most likely that no one really has any idea of where to start, the sheer power of these corporations are too much to handle. However I am surprised they have not mention techniques such as boycotting to hit these companies financially which seems to be there only concern.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Any sort of direction or suggestion of actions we can take as a society would be helpful. Another element that would add value to the film would to show corporations that are environmentally and socially responsible. This can offer some hope and suggest how our mindset of how corporations are set up must change.
Top of Form
none
Bottom of Form